324 réponses à ce sujet

[WebShaman]

Nice catch there, WhiZard.

[MagicalMaster]

WhiZard wrote...

No, due to rounding, it is equal to maximize.  (Empower gets 3, 4, 6, or 7 which averages 5).

Fair enough.  I suspect Shadow will still be upset about how Maximize isn't BETTER.  Edited prior post.

P.S. See how this works, WebShaman?  If you make an inaccurate statement you acknowledge it, own up to it, and fix it.  You should try it sometime.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 13 février 2014 - 09:58 .

[Pstemarie]

This is better than watching UFC!

[MerricksDad]

*shoots this thread with a vorpal mace

[Shadooow]

First. I dont disagree with anything that Whizard wrote. But what MM wrote is bunch of nonsenses and because he is suggesting how I do interpret something I have to respond because thats not true.

MagicalMaster wrote...

However, imagine GMW gave a 1d(casterlvl) bonus to damage.  Should this be empowerable?  Presumably you would say yes.

Now imagine GMW gave a casterlvl/2 bonus to damage.  Should this be empowerable?  Presumably you would say no.

Now, what's actually the difference between these?  The former is between by 0.5 damage per level and has random damage but the AVERAGE behavior of both spells is essentially the same.

first there is no spell with a 1d(caster level) so this is only pure theory that is meaningless. Second difference is in a fact that one spell has variable, numeric effect and the other doesn't.

Did you just, like, ignore the second of my post?

Quick quiz:

#1: A spell does (1d6 + 1) per caster level.  So 40d6 + 40 at level 40.  If Empowered, should that be (40d6 + 40) * 1.5 or (40d6 * 1.5) + 40?

#2: A spell does (1d6 + 1) damage per missile and fires one missile per caster level.  So 40d6 + 40 at level 40.  If Empowered, should that be (40d6 + 40) * 1.5 or (40d6 * 1.5) + 40?

First no such spell as #1 exist. So its meaningless, but if it would have existed there is no reason to believe the +1 wouldnt be empowered.

When you do understand that even if you cast a spell #2 on a single target you have to roll 1d6+1 for each missile. You do not empower the total damage output to a single target but each missile. Spells like magic missile has two effects, damage and number of missiles, if a number of missiles was 1d6+1 again it would be empowered again (which is an example of evards). You cannot calculate it this way because you would come into wrong results 10x (1d6+1)*1.5 != (10d6+10)*1.5

ShaDoOoW wrote...

I suggest to read this about dices.

Did YOU read it?

The whole point of that article is how dice versus constants don't matter, ONLY what the resulting range is.

And I said anything that suggest otherwise? I guess we misunderstood each other.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Indeed thats what it seems to indicate. Same as the fact that empower outshines maximized indicate this is not correct.

Hang on...you're fine with Empowering Magic Missile as (1d4 + 1) * 1.5, though?

Jesus, last three pages Im trying to tell you that I never had a problem with empowering (1d4+1) in magic missile! Never claimed it shouldnt be calculated, its not per level bonus and its an example in DnD empower spell description so how could I possibly thought about not adding this +1 to the calculation?

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 14 février 2014 - 03:34 .

[Aelis Eine]

WhiZard wrote...

Evard's in NWN does not reflect the DnD version.  But looking at the NWN, the number of targets (summoned tentacles) is multiplied by 1.5, and their respective damage is multiplied by 1.5.  So long as their damage isn't combined into one source of total damage (as was fixed in the 1.69) there is no pertinent calculation which is multiplied by 2.25.

Post-1.69, all tentacles can still attack the same target, just that damage is applied separately, similar to Flame Arrow and IGMS. The gross outgoing damage would still be 2.25x would it not?

I could make the same argument with barbarian damage reduction if the tentacles deal damage to the barbarian, should I expect the actual damage dealt to the barbarian is multiplied by 1.5 (that is the damage reduction would come before the 1.5 multiplication)? Answer is no.  By limiting the sources to damage, healing and number of targets as calculated by the spell, there is no reason to assume other calculations involving the variable are to come out as 1.5 times normal.

You can't make that same argument

I quote your own reference to the SRD:

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.

For you to make that argument, Barbarian Damage Reduction would have to first, be variable, and second, be an effect of the empowered spell. It is neither, so the rest doesn't apply.

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Fair enough.  I suspect Shadow will still be upset about how Maximize isn't BETTER.  Edited prior post.

P.S. See how this works, WebShaman?  If you make an inaccurate statement you acknowledge it, own up to it, and fix it.  You should try it sometime.

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....

[MrZork]

Aelis Eine wrote...

WhiZard wrote...

Evard's in NWN does not reflect the DnD version. But looking at the NWN, the number of targets (summoned tentacles) is multiplied by 1.5, and their respective damage is multiplied by 1.5. So long as their damage isn't combined into one source of total damage (as was fixed in the 1.69) there is no pertinent calculation which is multiplied by 2.25.

Post-1.69, all tentacles can still attack the same target, just that damage is applied separately, similar to Flame Arrow and IGMS. The gross outgoing damage would still be 2.25x would it not?

No more than half the tentacles can attack a single target. However, that still means that, on average, a target inside a level 20+ Evard's is potentially subject to 2.20x (not quite 2.25x due to roundoff considerations) the damage of the same target inside a non-empowered Evard's. How much damage a target will actually take will depend on other factors, such as damage reduction.

Not that there is a problem with empowered Evard's, necessarily. At least 1.5x-the-tentacles and 1.5x-the-damage-per-tentacle is certainly what the NWN description of empower implies will happen. There is a problem with the fact that empower treats medium creatures as huge ones. I have been staying out of the debate over how empower should work, but this spell at least serves as an illustration of difference between changing a spell because one disagrees with its implementation and changing a spell to fix a clear bug. How the empowered spell ought to work is an implementation decision, whether or not one agrees with it. The fact that the script uses = where it should have used == is a bug.

Modifié par MrZork, 14 février 2014 - 07:49 .

[WebShaman]

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....

??

I was replying to WhiZard. I never took any "shots" at anyone. And I never ended this discussion here??!!

To what are you referring Elhanan?

[Shadooow]

With a one day distance, I have to admit that the correct implementation per DnD rules is to empower everything. It makes no sense that empower outshine maximize but from the enhanced description I see no way to exclude the +x/per x level bonus to the damage anymore. Its "broken", but it seems as intent.

Not that this fact would have any impact on the issue that started this debate, just so you know and don't continue in this anymore...

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 14 février 2014 - 02:04 .

[WhiZard]

Aelis Eine wrote...

Post-1.69, all tentacles can still attack the same target, just that damage is applied separately, similar to Flame Arrow and IGMS. The gross outgoing damage would still be 2.25x would it not?

If all the damage were combined and the description read "This spell creates tentacles which attempt to pull the target apart for a total damage of (10 + (1d4)/2) * (1d6 + 4) damage," then the total damage output when empowered would be 1.5 * (10 + (1d4)/2) * (1d6 + 4), not 1.5 * (10 + (1d4)/2 * 1.5 * (1d6 +4).  By having the damage as allocated to each tentacle, rather than a combined (coordinated) spell attack, BioWare gave justification for allowing the 2.25 multiplication when empowered.  Needless to say, DnD does not do this.  Its 3.5 version does not have a variable number of tentacles and thus the empowered would only be at 1.5

Aelis Eine wrote...

I could make the same argument with barbarian damage reduction if the tentacles deal damage to the barbarian, should I expect the actual damage dealt to the barbarian is multiplied by 1.5 (that is the damage reduction would come before the 1.5 multiplication)? Answer is no.  By limiting the sources to damage, healing and number of targets as calculated by the spell, there is no reason to assume other calculations involving the variable are to come out as 1.5 times normal.

You can't make that same argument

I quote your own reference to the SRD:

Empower Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.

For you to make that argument, Barbarian Damage Reduction would have to first, be variable, and second, be an effect of the empowered spell. It is neither, so the rest doesn't apply.

I was assuming you were taking the stance of interpreting this portion

An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal

as meaning that all mechanics of final damage output are to be 1.5 of the final damage output of the spell cast normally.  That was your point, no?

Modifié par WhiZard, 14 février 2014 - 02:36 .

[Elhanan]

WebShaman wrote...

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....

??

I was replying to WhiZard. I never took any "shots" at anyone. And I never ended this discussion here??!!

To what are you referring Elhanan?

Was not you I was ref; was another that continued to take personal shots after you had left the debate.

[WhiZard]

Needless to say, DnD does not do this. Its 3.5 version does not have a variable number of tentacles and thus the empowered would only be at 1.5

Actually got out the 3.0 SRD and it does seem that the 2.25 damage interpretation could be applied for each empowering of the spell.

Black Tentacles
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: 1d4 tentacles + one tentacle/level, all within 15 ft. of a central point
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell conjures many rubbery black tentacles. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. There are 1d4 such tentacles, plus one per caster level, appearing randomly scattered about the area. Each tentacle is 10 feet long (Large) and saves as the character does. It has AC 16, 1 hit point/per caster level, an attack bonus of +1/per caster level, and a Strength score of 19 (+4 bonus). It is immune to spells that don’t cause damage (other than disintegrate).
Each round that a tentacle is not already grappling someone or something, starting the round after it appears, it makes a grapple attack at a random creature or object within 10 feet of it. These attacks take place on the character's turn. The tentacles do not attack each other, nor do they attack objects that are smaller than a Medium-size creature. The attacks are like regular grappling attacks, except that they don’t provoke attacks of opportunity from opponents. Also, they cause 1d6 points of normal damage (+4 for Strength), not subdual damage. A tentacle maintains its grapple even after its subject is dying or dead.

Unlike 3.5 tentacles, the 3.0 tentacles can easily be killed off with AoE spells or great cleave. However looking at the 3.0 description the variable damage seems to be more a description of the creature rather than a description of what the spell does (it is listed with all the other creature stats). So my interpretation is 3.0 get 1.5 times the number when empowered, while 3.5 get 1.5 times the damage when empowered. BioWare seems to have gotten the best of both worlds.

Modifié par WhiZard, 14 février 2014 - 02:50 .

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

As opposed to the example set by one taking free shots after the other has ended the 'discussion'? Priceless; that is, without worth....

Yes, suggesting that someone should be more honest and forthright in their dealings is such a dastardly and terrible thing to say.  It must reflect rather poorly on my moral character to think that people should acknowledge and fix their mistakes like I just did rather than evading issues.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

With a one day distance, I have to admit that the correct implementation per DnD rules is to empower everything.It makes no sense that empower outshine maximize but from the enhanced description I see no way to exclude the +x/per x level bonus to the damage anymore. Its "broken", but it seems as intent.

I agree that it makes no sense for Empower to outshine or equal Maximize but it makes even LESS sense for Empower to only add like 10% and Maximize 15% to some spells while adding 50% and 71-77% to 95% of them.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Maximizing a NEB and only getting a 14.2% bonus is wierd and unintended.  We just think it's even WEIRDER and MORE unintended to make Empower only give a 9% bonus.

It's a lesser of two evils, Shadow.

Or, in other words, no one has ever disagreed with one of your main points, we simply think a different point has higher priority.

But thank you for being willing to change your mind after consideration.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 14 février 2014 - 05:11 .

[FunkySwerve]

Comparing Empower to Maximize only on averages misses part of the value of Maximize - predictability. When you cast, you know how much damage you will deal. Flattened risk can be incredibly valuable in the real world, and has obvious carryover implications in D&D mechanics as well. Consider by way of example a spell that, when maximized, is guaranteed to kill a creature, save or no (setting aside spells subject to, for example, improved/evasion). Unless the full range of the empowered version of that spell is able to make the same guarantee, what you are paying for with that extra metamagic level is certainty.

That said, I still don't think Max is generally worth the full extra level. If mechanics allowed, it'd probably be worth more like 2.2 metamagic levels - in part because it requires a great deal of information and knowledge to use to maximal effect, which the person casting will often either not have access to, or will not have time to compute (like current remaining hit points).

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 14 février 2014 - 06:00 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Yes, suggesting that someone should be more honest and forthright in their dealings is such a dastardly and terrible thing to say.  It must reflect rather poorly on my moral character to think that people should acknowledge and fix their mistakes like I just did rather than evading issues.

Actually as I recall, your humble replies have been to 'clarify the record' which was unneeded as the record was there for all to see, and to exemplify 'Fair enough' followed by veiled backhanded compliments as a proper apology.

The Appraisal check of said replies stands for me....

As for actual advice needed for experienced Players, that seems to have derailed ages ago, IMO.

[WhiZard]

FunkySwerve wrote...
That said, I still don't think Max is generally worth the full extra level. If mechanics allowed, it'd probably be worth more like 2.2 metamagic levels - in part because it requires a great deal of information and knowledge to use to maximal effect, which the person casting will often either not have access to, or will not have time to compute (like current remaining hit points).

Funky

Although NWN does not support it, as the spell levels go higher (in excess of 10), the maximize average can eventually outdo the empower investment per level (calculated logarithmicly) as the number of sides of the die increases.

Die roll    Spell levels Maximize is worth using the empower index
nd4          2.32
nd6          2.66
nd8          2.84
nd10        2.95
nd12        3.02

Thus, in DnD, if it is a low level spell, you would do better stacking up multiple empowers, but for higher level spells, maximize looks a bit enticing.

[WebShaman]

My apologies Elhanan, I must have misunderstood you. My bad.

As for actual advice needed for experienced Players, that seems to have derailed ages ago, IMO.

Yeah, out with the bathwater! Hehe...

Nice to see you in the thread FS! You of all peeps here has the most experience with this sort of thing IMHO. I can only imagine the nightmares that you and your team have had to overcome for your PW HG.

A shining example, btw, of what is possible in NWN. Amazing. The amount of work...stunning does not do it justice.

[Bogdanov89]

ShadoOow, after all these philosophical discussions, do you perhaps plan on making any changes to the Community Patch - at least as far as Empower/Maximize go?

I have been amateurishly following all your discussions, and i am very curious as to how it will affect the community patch?

Modifié par Bogdanov89, 14 février 2014 - 09:33 .

[Shadooow]

Bogdanov89 wrote...

ShadoOow, after all these philosophical discussions, do you perhaps plan on making any changes to the Community Patch - at least as far as Empower/Maximize go?

I have been amateurishly following all your discussions, and i am very curious as to how it will affect the community patch?

No, not really.

I mean, I already offered to revisite the version 1.70 and remove anything that caused peoples like Pstemarie to condemn the whole project. But how that turned out hmm?

As for 1.71 matter, I see only one reason why to change this and thats empower description (which could be changed instead). The 7 pages of debate was on a subject what DnD rules implies and what is the correct calculation there. There is still the argument about what Bioware (or Floodgate as Pstemarie pointed out) intented. In a gameplay I found the MaximizeOrEmpower behavior to work way better than the OC behavior and I was playtesting this on a high-magic PW, I really don't think this will be different matter on low magic. And a goal of CPP is to make more balanced game afterall which this change does. Im willing to change this based on a poll or proposal of those who uses CP 1.71 but so far nothing suggests that peoples using this have so big problem with it.

I don't think that fact that maximize deals only 19% damage increase is a problem / or makes no sense. Maximize maximizes the damage output, there is no guarantee it grants XX% damage as MM suggest. And I see no reason why the fact that empowers in CPP now deals even less damage increase than maximize makes less sense.
In case of Negative energy burst, I see no way how a empowered output of 20-32 makes less sense than 31-42 when the maximized output is 28. The Bioware's/Floodgate's (not mine) implementation makes definitely more sense because it fixes everything despite its incorrect per DnD rules (which is almost everything in NWN btw). In the CPP empower spells still sometimes deal more damage than maximize, but the average is lesser which favors maximize and thats alright because maximize is a 1spell level harder to cast. Keep in mind that the player usually needs both feats. NWN, unlike DnD, doesn't offer the possibility to memorize the spell in any higher spell level slot which is a secondary advantage of the metamagic spells that allows this. Speaking of NEB and similar spells, its usually the only advantage of using the metamagic on such spell in a first place.

Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 15 février 2014 - 12:50 .

[henesua]

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.

i agree. i also think your spell system was a great improvement.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Actually as I recall, your humble replies have been to 'clarify the record' which was unneeded as the record was there for all to see, and to exemplify 'Fair enough' followed by veiled backhanded compliments as a proper apology.

Yes, I'm sure it's more likely that people coming in late will read the entirety of both threads and critically think about WebShaman's comments rather than just assume he's right if no one points out how he's wrong.

Hint: that's sarcasm.  People tend to believe stuff they see in these types of cases (if Bob claims Chris is trolling and Chris doesn't say otherwise) unless they see contradictons by others (such as Chris pointing out how Bob's claims are baseless or how it is actually Bob trolling).

Tell me this: was I *WRONG* about anything I said in my clarifications?  If so, what?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

No, not really.

I mean, I already offered to revisite the version 1.70 and remove anything that caused peoples like Pstemarie to condemn the whole project. But how that turned out hmm?

How did it turn out?  Don't assume everyone is aware of everything that happens, especially for custom projects like this.  You're familiar with the history since it's your project, many of us aren't.

I'm guessing you're saying Pstemarie specifically didn't change their mind or something?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

In a gameplay I found the MaximizeOrEmpower behavior to work way better than the OC behavior and I was playtesting this on a high-magic PW, I really don't think this will be different matter on low magic.

Hang on, how does it work "way better?"  I thought your ENTIRE CLAIM was that "It's so small of a difference that you'll never notice?"  Now it suddenly is a big difference?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

And a goal of CPP is to make more balanced game afterall which this change does. Im willing to change this based on a poll or proposal of those who uses CP 1.71 but so far nothing suggests that peoples using this have so big problem with it.

How does it make it more balanced?  That's not a claim you can simply assert.

I'm guessing your main argument is that "My custom version of Empower makes Empower always equal to or worse than Maximize and therefore that IMPROVES balance" while plenty of other people are saying "Your custom version of Empower makes Empower worthless for some spells which already suffer from Maximize being worthless, that's a BAD thing to have both 'prime' meta-magic feats worthless for some spells which REDUCES balance."

You sound like you think you have a lot of support that your idea is more balanced, but frankly I haven't seen anyone but you support that idea.  Most people seem to think it makes it less balanced since it makes a meta-magic feat basically useless for some spells.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

In case of Negative energy burst, I see no way how a empowered output of 20-32 makes less sense than 31-42 when the maximized output is 28.

Fireball?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Lightning Bolt?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Scintillating Sphere?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Mestil's Acid Breath?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Flame Arrow?  Empower good, Maximizevery good.

Vampiric Touch?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Negative Energy Bust?  Empower good, Maximize utterly worthless.

There's a pattern here Shadow and one thing is different from all the others.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.

Honest (and serious) question, Shadow:

What in your patch is worth us having to do this at all?  Especially when "fixing" stuff like this, Regeneration, or other things might also then confuse players who are used to it acting like your documentation claims?

Sell us in a few sentences.  What are the major benefits of the patch that are noticable and worthwhile?  Especially for projects that already use things like CEP, Project Q, or custom haks of their own.

You already mentioned I obliterated your AI fixes/improvements by adding 3 lines at the start of a few scripts, for example, so obviously that's not a good reason to use your patch and tell our players that your patch is expected.

[Shadooow]

[quote]MagicalMaster wrote...
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

No, not really.

I mean, I already offered to revisite the version 1.70 and remove anything that caused peoples like Pstemarie to condemn the whole project. But how that turned out hmm?[/quote]
How did it turn out?  Don't assume everyone is aware of everything that happens, especially for custom projects like this.  You're familiar with the history since it's your project, many of us aren't.

I'm guessing you're saying Pstemarie specifically didn't change their mind or something?[/quote]
How did that turn out? Nobody cares. Those who doesn't use CPP (anymore) doesn't care, they know better so why bother with shytty project like this, they never needed it and never will.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

In a gameplay I found the MaximizeOrEmpower behavior to work way better than the OC behavior and I was playtesting this on a high-magic PW, I really don't think this will be different matter on low magic.[/quote]
Hang on, how does it work "way better?"  I thought your ENTIRE CLAIM was that "It's so small of a difference that you'll never notice?"  Now it suddenly is a big difference?[/quote]
Are your arguments limited to what Ive said two pages back and what I said two pages later and "ha-ha, you didn't used the same word!" ?

It is a small difference except three spells +-. For other spells the difference is so small that its hardly noticeable by someone who play this game still normally or even roleplaying. I stand for this claim.
(For someone like you, who is playing this game with a calculator in a hand and calculates the damage outputs and blames the NWN randomizer everytime hes not getting average, this is of course first thing you will notice when you would installed CPP. Of course. )

However, those who watches the gameplay from a DM client might spotted some differences and those differences are in my opinion better. Ability buffs and spell mantle are what I have in mind. First favors the maximize which is harder to cast (with a 3minumum for empower, maximize was pointless especially for clerics who has ext divine power there), second gives a small benefit to taking the greater spell mantle spell which before hasn't - was actually worse than the 7th level (before you focus on this and claim I am wrong, I mean in a usage, not output). (And BTW it still doesn't changes the spell mantle behavior, sorcerers are still better to take this spell, so nobody needs to make relevel because of that). For damaging spells, fact that they make less damage than before is usually a better behavior on low magic servers. In the PW I was playtesting this, high magic, it caused no difference on gameplay (and yes we have bosses like you mentioned though we have no boss specifically killed by only spamming FoD, NEB and NER) nobody even noticed. While more spell damage might be better behavior on a high-magic, spells we are talking about here are not "damaging" spells in a first place. They does damage but their first effect is death, strength penalty etc. and CPP didn't removed this benefit.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

And a goal of CPP is to make more balanced game afterall which this change does. Im willing to change this based on a poll or proposal of those who uses CP 1.71 but so far nothing suggests that peoples using this have so big problem with it.[/quote]
How does it make it more balanced?  That's not a claim you can simply assert.

I'm guessing your main argument is that "My custom version of Empower makes Empower always equal to or worse than Maximize and therefore that IMPROVES balance" while plenty of other people are saying "Your custom version of Empower makes Empower worthless for some spells which already suffer from Maximize being worthless, that's a BAD thing to have both 'prime' meta-magic feats worthless for some spells which REDUCES balance."[/quote]
Yes thats exactly my thinking. And its not my custom version of Empower but Bioware's.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

In case of Negative energy burst, I see no way how a empowered output of 20-32 makes less sense than 31-42 when the maximized output is 28.[/quote]

Fireball?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Lightning Bolt?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Scintillating Sphere?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Mestil's Acid Breath?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Flame Arrow?  Empower good, Maximizevery good.

Vampiric Touch?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Negative Energy Bust?  Empower good, Maximize utterly worthless.

There's a pattern here Shadow and one thing is different from all the others.
[/quote]
As much as you try, maximize is not broken. It does exactly what it should and there are no expectations it should boost spell effects output by 100%.

Given to that, fact that a cheaper feat outshines more expensive feats means the cheaper feat is broken. Its not due to the spell design when this affects 25% of spells. The empower is what it is badly designed. As I said already, even due to the low effect increase from metamagic, it is worth using. If not for the greater damage then only to be able to cast that spell more times. Did empower change in CPP caused anyone to stop using empowered spells on "my" high-magic PW? Nope. They still does. And as I said many times already, I am not fixed on one environment, I considered the low-magic one and came into conclusion that the new empower behavior will be favored there as well and won't cause any gameplay issues either. Unfortunately due to the fact that 99% PW owners never install CPP thats something I only speculated, but since I played on few low-magic servers (20/30 lvl cap), I beieve I got enough experiences to decide.

[quote]
[quote]ShaDoOoW wrote...

Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.[/quote]
Honest (and serious) question, Shadow:

What in your patch is worth us having to do this at all?  Especially when "fixing" stuff like this, Regeneration, or other things might also then confuse players who are used to it acting like your documentation claims?

Sell us in a few sentences.  What are the major benefits of the patch that are noticable and worthwhile?  Especially for projects that already use things like CEP, Project Q, or custom haks of their own.[/quote]
Everything is written in the documentation, my language skills are not perfect but I think its understandable. If there is nothing you would consider worth to install CPP then I can say nothing more. If you believe you got everything and don't need anything from CPP, suit yourself. I, when I look on a wiki and see a ultra long list of notes that it doesn't work this way and that way, its bugged in this, that is not mentioned in description, doesn't consider this to be fine. If a CPP had its own wiki, there would be practically no note anywhere because everything now works as should or at least doesn't differ in description/implementation.

If you, as many others, prefer fixing each spell on your own in your own way, prefer importing stuff like "Familiar Fixes" one by one when you find its bugged on your own, there is nothing I can do. Community Patches in general are about the idea. They should unite the community in a effort to improve the game that is no longer supported by its creators. I don't know whether this goal succeded in a games like Gothic 3 (where I first learned about CPPs) but fact that half the community intentionally ignores this and condemn this from the beginning means something to me - I won't be analysing this, but think about it.
[quote]
You already mentioned I obliterated your AI fixes/improvements by adding
3 lines at the start of a few scripts, for example, so obviously that's
not a good reason to use your patch and tell our players that your
patch is expected.[/quote]
seriously? Once you argument that CPP changes something in your module and thats a reason why you suggest anyone not to use it and now are you argumenting that because CPP doesn't changes somethingyou have in a module is a bad thing also?

Are you even little objective?<_<

Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 16 février 2014 - 10:17 .

[WhiZard]

Combining multiple ideas on this thread (increasing spell levels beyond 9 for more metamagic, improving maximize to better compete with empower, and adjusting the number of sides to die rolls) I came up with this bugger which really rewards high level casters.


EDIT: Added slightly more flexibility by factoring two different dice (or a die and constant) to this.  This also does not penalize low level spells being empowered from rounding issues resulting in performing the function twice.

int MetaDamage(int nDiceSide, int nDiceNumber, int nSpellSchool= SPELL_SCHOOL_GENERAL, int nDiceSide2 = 1, int nDiceNumber2 = 0)
{
object oCaster = OBJECT_SELF;
if(GetObjectType(OBJECT_SELF) == OBJECT_TYPE_AREA_OF_EFFECT)
  oCaster = GetAreaOfEffectCreator(OBJECT_SELF);
int nLevel = GetCasterLevel(oCaster);
int nMeta = GetMetaMagicFeat();
int nEmpowerTimes = 0;
int nSideAdjust = 0;
int nDamage = 0;
if(nDiceSide > 12)
  nDiceSide = 12;
if(nDiceSide2 > 12)
  nDiceSide2 = 12;
if(nDiceSide < 1)
  nDiceSide = 1;
if(nDiceSide2 < 1)
  nDiceSide2 = 1;
if(nDiceNumber > 60)
  nDiceNumber = 60;
if(nDiceNumber2 > 60)
  nDiceNumber2 = 60;
if(nDiceNumber < 0)
  nDiceNumber = 0;
if(nDiceNumber2 < 0)
  nDiceNumber2 = 0;
if(nSpellSchool >= 1 && nSpellSchool <= 8)
  {
  //Epic Spell Focus
  if(GetHasFeat(609 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 3;
  //Greater Spell Focus
  else if(GetHasFeat(392 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 2;
  //Spell Focus
  else if(nSpellSchool == SPELL_SCHOOL_ABJURATION)
    {
    if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_SPELL_FOCUS_ABJURATION, oCaster))
      nSideAdjust += 1;
    }
  else if (GetHasFeat(164 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 1;
  //Arcane Defense
  if(GetHasFeat(414 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 1;
  }
if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_EPIC_SPELL_PENETRATION, oCaster))
  nSideAdjust += 3;
else if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_GREATER_SPELL_PENETRATION, oCaster))
  nSideAdjust += 2;
else if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_SPELL_PENETRATION, oCaster))
  nSideAdjust += 1;
if(nMeta == METAMAGIC_EMPOWER)
  nEmpowerTimes += 1;
nDiceSide += nSideAdjust;
nDiceSide2 += nSideAdjust;
//Let epic levels unlock higher spell levels for empowering
if(nLevel > 21 && GetHasFeat(FEAT_EMPOWER_SPELL, oCaster))
  nEmpowerTimes += (nLevel-16)/6;
if(nMeta == METAMAGIC_MAXIMIZE)
  nDamage = nDiceSide * nDiceNumber + nDiceSide2 * nDiceNumber;
else
  {
  while(nDiceNumber--)
    nDamage += Random(nDiceSide) +1;
  while(nDiceNumber2--)
    nDamage += Random(nDiceSide2) +1;
  }
while(nEmpowerTimes--)
  nDamage = 3 * nDamage/2;
return nDamage;
}

Modifié par WhiZard, 17 février 2014 - 12:12 .

[MagicalMaster]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Are your arguments limited to what Ive said two pages back and what I said two pages later and "ha-ha, you didn't used the same word!" ?

Not at all.  You're still saying it on THIS page:

ShaDoOoW wrote...

It is a small difference except three spells +-. For other spells the difference is so small that its hardly noticeable by someone who play this game still normally or even roleplaying. I stand for this claim.

One post ago you said it was "way better," now you're saying that the difference is so small it's hardly noticable for most spells and it makes small differences for a select few spells.

By your own words, most people wouldn't notice that you even changed Empower -- so let's not claim your balance changes make things "way better."

ShaDoOoW wrote...

and yes we have bosses like you mentioned though we have no boss specifically killed by only spamming FoD, NEB and NER) nobody even noticed. While more spell damage might be better behavior on a high-magic, spells we are talking about here are not "damaging" spells in a first place. They does damage but their first effect is death, strength penalty etc. and CPP didn't removed this benefit.[

Or, in other words, you DON'T have bosses like I mentioned where being able to Empower FoD, NEB, and a few other spells made a big difference.

Then on TOP of that you're saying "Well, it doesn't matter if I reduce the damage, they're mainly used for something else anyway" which is an argument AGAINST changing it because, according to you, the damage didn't even matter in the first place!  So it wasn't messing up the balance to begin with!

Do you see the contradiction here?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

As much as you try, maximize is not broken. It does exactly what it should and there are no expectations it should boost spell effects output by 100%.

If you can't see the inconsistency and the problem is with Maximize in that case then this is pointless.  Empower gives the same boost every time.  Maximize gives the same boost 95% of the time.  Even if you don't want to fix Maximize, which is understandable, that isn't a justification for nerfing Empower.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Everything is written in the documentation, my language skills are not perfect but I think its understandable. If there is nothing you would consider worth to install CPP then I can say nothing more.

You clearly don't know how to market something, Shadow, that was your grand opportunity to try to sway some of us and you just completely blew it.

Q: Why use NWNCX?
A: Eliminates the online connection delay, lists many online servers, and even gives you more camera control if you want

Q: Why use NWNTX?
A: Faster load times and faster compiling

Q: Why use NWNX?
A: Ability to alter things that you can't do within the toolset or normal scripting

Q: Why use Shadow's patch?
A: Just read through dozens of pages of documentation and figure out what might be important, it's way too complicated and/or way too much work for me to explain anything to you.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
seriously? Once you argument that CPP changes something in your module and thats a reason why you suggest anyone not to use it and now are you argumenting that because CPP doesn't changes somethingyou have in a module is a bad thing also?

According to your documentation using custom haks and/or CEP/Project Q will cause issues with many of your features.  You've also said module specific scripts will undo many of your changes.  So if we have a module with custom haks that uses CEP and has minor changes to pretty much every spell script and some AI scripts...what benefits does your patch even give?  Have we just undone basically all of the advantages the patch was supposed to give?